String Theory

[billbo911]

Originally Posted by JosephM

I think we need to take a step back and look at what really classifies as science (gravity & evolution) and a theory and what isn't. (i.e. creationism & intelligent design).

I need to say this as respectfully as possible. I don't believe you can prove nor disprove either evolution or creationism beyond a shadow of a doubt. Neither are fully testable, therefore, you can't call either a theory according to the description of what qualifies as a theory in this discussion.

When you make statements like this in a public forum, you are guaranteed to offend several people. May I suggest that you carefully consider your statements. Posting your opinion is fine, but be ready to prove it.

One example of proving a point:
Let's consider the clotting mechanism of the blood. What triggers it? What prevents it from triggering all the time? What tells it when to stop?

Evolution says this process had to develop over time. If that were true, no forms of warm blooded creatures could survive. Once the first cut occurred, the creature would bleed out. Modifying this behavior, over time would not work, all creatures with blood would die. But, suppose clotting did develop, without the ability to stop the process, the entire bloodstream would clot. Again, the creature dies. and no further progress is made on the clotting process. Lastly, the trigger mechanism shouldn't work unless needed otherwise the same result would occur, death. One failure in any of these steps would have the same result. All three processes need to develop simultaneously and completely without failure. I just don't see evolution supporting this process.

Intelligent Design on the other hand.............

I'm not trying to flame you Joseph. I'm just expressing my opinion, and I believe there are more facts to support (I didn't say prove) my point of view than yours. This is just one. Nothing personal.

[Joe Matt]

Originally Posted by billbo911

I need to say this as respectfully as possible. I don't believe you can prove nor disprove either evolution or creationism beyond a shadow of a doubt. Neither are fully testable, therefore, you can't call either a theory according to the description of what qualifies as a theory in this discussion.

When you make statements like this in a public forum, you are guaranteed to offend several people. May I suggest that you carefully consider your statements. Posting your opinion is fine, but be ready to prove it.

One example of proving a point:
Let's consider the clotting mechanism of the blood. What triggers it? What prevents it from triggering all the time? What tells it when to stop?

Evolution says this process had to develop over time. If that were true, no forms of warm blooded creatures could survive. Once the first cut occurred, the creature would bleed out. Modifying this behavior, over time would not work, all creatures with blood would die. But, suppose clotting did develop, without the ability to stop the process, the entire bloodstream would clot. Again, the creature dies. and no further progress is made on the clotting process. Lastly, the trigger mechanism shouldn't work unless needed otherwise the same result would occur, death. One failure in any of these steps would have the same result. All three processes need to develop simultaneously and completely without failure. I just don't see evolution supporting this process.

Intelligent Design on the other hand.............

I'm not trying to flame you Joseph. I'm just expressing my opinion, and I believe there are more facts to support (I didn't say prove) my point of view than yours. This is just one. Nothing personal.

Oh, don't worry, water off the back man. But here's something to ponder, did I post it purely out of the fact it's my opinion? Or was there some sort of other motive? Here's another thing to ponder too, if God (or whoever created life, alienes if it be your thing) hand his hand in the gene pool in creating life through intellegent design, then why do we have so many flaws? Do these flaws say God is flawed? Or did he create us with flaws? But then why did he create us with flaws?

[billbo911]

Originally Posted by JosephM

Oh, don't worry, water off the back man. But here's something to ponder, did I post it purely out of the fact it's my opinion? Or was there some sort of other motive? Here's another thing to ponder too, if God (or whoever created life, alienes if it be your thing) hand his hand in the gene pool in creating life through intellegent design, then why do we have so many flaws? Do these flaws say God is flawed? Or did he create us with flaws? But then why did he create us with flaws?

Awesome questions!!!!
If you want, I'll get into the fallen nature of man, you know, the Adam, Eve and sin thing. In a nut shell, we were created perfect! But though choosing to sin, Adam began a downward spiral for all mankind. As an example, look at the lifespans of Adam, then his children, then grandchildren, then.... You will see a gradual shortening all along the way. That continued until very recent history when man discovered and learned a lot more about how we are (sorry for this) created and function. Now our medical treatment, technology and abilities are far greater than they have been throughout history. That being said, we still know so little about life it's self. Gettin' heavy here.....

One of the greatest abilities God gave us was the ability to choose. Ultimately, those choices lead to where we are now. So you ask "Why would God give it to us?" Because you can't be forced to love something, you can only choose to.

[Dave.Norton]

Originally Posted by billbo911

Evolution says this process had to develop over time. If that were true, no forms of warm blooded creatures could survive. Once the first cut occurred, the creature would bleed out. Modifying this behavior, over time would not work, all creatures with blood would die. But, suppose clotting did develop, without the ability to stop the process, the entire bloodstream would clot. Again, the creature dies. and no further progress is made on the clotting process. Lastly, the trigger mechanism shouldn't work unless needed otherwise the same result would occur, death. One failure in any of these steps would have the same result. All three processes need to develop simultaneously and completely without failure. I just don't see evolution supporting this process.

Alas, I see a hole in your argument; you are looking at the current state of a mechanism, removing a feature and seeing that it fails, then proposing that the mechanism couldn't have developed. I think all that you have demonstrated is that it didn't follow that specific path. Along this same line watching the news of late I find I have more in common genetically with a male chimp than I do with the lady working down the hall, how is that for irony? I suspect she might agree... Anyway, let’s go back to string theory, it may not be enough of an explanation to really qualify as a theory yet, but it is interesting.

[billbo911]

Originally Posted by Dave.Norton

Alas, I see a hole in your argument; you are looking at the current state of a mechanism, removing a feature and seeing that it fails, then proposing that the mechanism couldn't have developed. I think all that you have demonstrated is that it didn't follow that specific path. Along this same line watching the news of late I find I have more in common genetically with a male chimp than I do with the lady working down the hall, how is that for irony? I suspect she might agree... Anyway, let’s go back to string theory, it may not be enough of an explanation to really qualify as a theory yet, but it is interesting.

Agreed. I personally am intrigued by string theory. I anxiously await further development(s) in this field. I also agree this is a thread about string theory, not creationism and evolution. If there were a forum on this board that lent it's self to that discussion that is where this discussion would belong. That is a discussion that could quite easily continue at infinitum.

(BTW, You say that there is a hole in my logic. If there is, then explain, using evolutionary principles, how the clotting mechanism developed from a one celled organism to what it is today. I would love to understand how such a complex process could have developed without any errors in the process throughout it's development cycle.) Oops, I digress. Sorry, feel free to PM me if you want with the explanation. This thread (string ) has drifted far enough

[Dan Zollman]

Although there are many equations that support string theory, much of the theory depends on assumptions. String theory answers many questions about physics, but some of those answers are just generated so that the answer can be incorporated into the theory.
However, there are some specific experiments that will be done that can confirm some of what string theory has said and if the experiments are successful, they might give some very solid evidence. The "Laser Interferometer Space Antenna" will be launched in 2013, and is supposed to detect "gravity waves" from the big bang which are predicted by the theory. The Large Hadron collider which is currently built will search for particles predicted by string theory.
I was personally very happy when I saw the cover of the August 2005 Discover magazine: "Is String Theory about to Snap?"